the
^.D DEESS
OF THE
HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN
IN INDICATION OF
THE POLICY OF THE FEAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PRINCIPLES
OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Delivered at Cooper Institute, February 27tli, 1860,
ISSUED BY
THE YOUNG MEN'S REPUBLICAN UNION,
(659 BROADWAY, XEW-YORK,)
WITH NOTES BY
CHARLES C. NOTT & CEPHAS BRAINERD,
Members of the Eoard of Control.
!
NEW- YORK :
GEORGE F. NESBITT & CO.. PRINTERS AND STATIONERS.
I860.
OFFICERS OF THE UNION.
CHARLES T. RODGERS, P at
DEXTER A. HAWKINS, Vu&PrmdenL
ERASMUS STERLING, Secretary.
WILLIAM M. MI AN KLIN. Treasurer.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTED:.
CEPHAS BRAINERD, Chairman.
B] viamin r. mami:i:i'i:, r. G. DEGRAW,
RICHARD 0. McCORMICK, JAMES II. WELSH,
OHABLES 0. NOTT, E. C. JOHNSON,
OHABLES II. COOPER, LEWIS M. PECK.
ADVISORY IIOAKD.
WM. CLLLKX BRYANT,
DANIEL DREW,
HIRAM BARNEY,
WILLIAM V. BRADY,
JOHN JAY,
GEORGE w. BLUNT,
HENRY A. HURLE1 L
ABU All MANX, Jb.,
HAMILTON FISH,
FRANCIS HALL,
HORACE GREELEY,
CHARLES A. PEAEODY,
EDGAR KETCHUM,
JAMES KELLY,
GEORGE I OLSOM,
WILLIAM CURTIS NOTES,
BENJAMIN I'. MAND3RRE
Entered according to a id sixty, by Charlm
c Hon I . I i . irtof the Southern Dl trtotd
New- York.
PREFACE.
This edition of Mr. Lincoln's address has been prepared and
published by the Young Men's Republican Union of New- York,
to exemplify its wisdom, truthfulness and learning. No one who
has not actually attempted to verify its details can understand
the patient research and historical labor which it embodies. The
history of our earlier politics is scattered through numerous jour-
nals, statutes, pamphlets, and letters ; and these are defective in
completeness and accuracy of statement, and in indices and tables
of contents. Neither can any one who has not travelled over this
precise ground, appreciate the accuracy of every trivial detail, or
the self-denying impartiality with which Mr. Lincoln has turned
from the testimony of " the fathers," on the general question of
Slavery, to present the single question which he discusses. From
the first line to the last — from his premises to his conclusion, he
travels with a swift, unerring directness which no logician ever
excelled — an argument complete and full, without the affectation of
learning, and without the stiffness which usually accompanies dates
and details. A single, easy, simple sentence of plain Anglo-Saxon
words contains a chapter of history, that, in some instances, has
taken days of labor to verify, and which must have cost the author
months of investigation to acquire. And, though the public
should justly estimate the labor bestowed on the facts which are
stated, they cannot estimate the greater labor involved on those
which are omitted — how many pages have been read — how many
works examined — what numerous statutes, resolutions, speeches,
letters, and biographies have been looked through. Commencing
with this address, as a political pamphlet, the reader will leave it
as an historical work — brief, complete, profound, impartial, truth-
ful— which will survive the time and the occasion that called it
forth, and be esteemed hereafter, no less for its intrinsic worth
than its unpretending modesty.
New-Yokk, J&pternber, 1860.
AD DEES S.
•
Mr .President and Fellow-Citizens of New- York : — The
facts with which. I shall deal this evening are mainly old and fa-
miliar ; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make
of them. If there shall he any novelty, it will be in the mode of
presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following
that presentation.
In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in
" The New- York Times," Senator Douglas said :
" Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which
ice live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than
we do now."
I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse.
I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting
point for a discussion between Eepublicans and that wing of the
Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the
inquiry : " What was the understanding those fathers had of the
question mentioned?"
"What is the frame of Government under which we live ?
The answer must be : "The Constitution of the United States."
That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and
under which the present government first went into operation,) and
twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which
were framed in 1789. (1)
Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution ? I suppose
the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly
called our fathers who framed that part of the present Govern-
ment. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is
altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and
Note 1. — The Constitution is attested September 17, 1787. It was ratified by all of
the States, excepting North Carolina and Rhode Island, in 17S8, and went into operation
on the first Wednesday in January, 1789. The first Congress proposed, in 17S9, ten ar-
ticles of amendments, all of which were ratified. Article XI. of the amendments was
prepared by the Third Congress, in 1794, and Article XII. by the Eighth Congress, in
1803. Another Article was proposed by the Eleventh Congress, prohibiting citizens
from receiving titles of nobility, presents or offices, from foreign nations. Although
this has been printed as one of the amendments, it was in fact never ratified, being ap-
proved by but twelve States. Vide Message of President Monroe, Feb. 4, ISIS. ^
8
• timent of the whole nation at that time. Their names, being
familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now
be repeate
1 I ■• " thirty-nine " for the present, as being " our fathers
who framed the Government under which we live,"
What is the question which, according to ti i1 fathers
understood "just as well, and even better than we do i ■■•'. ?"
It ia this: Does the proper division of local from federal
authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal
0 -nmenttoci slavery in. our Federal Territoru
[Jpon this. Senator [>. -; holds the affirmative, and Republi-
cans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue;
and this issue — this question — is precisely what the texl declares
our fatlu-rs understood '' better than v
Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them,
ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted
upon it — how they expressed that better understand]
In 17S4, three years before the Constitution — the JJhited States
then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other, (3) the Con-
gress of the Confederation had before them the question of pro-
hibiting slavery in that Territory ; and four of the " thirty-nil) .
The Convention < I of sixty-Jive members. Of these ten did not at-
tcn>l I • Convention, and fitte n did not sign the Constitution. Of these Bixteen, .-ix
refused t.< > sign, and published their reaa so refusing, viz.: Robert fates undJuhn
■ • \. w-York; Edmund Randolph and George Mason, of Virginia; Luther Mar-
tin, of Maryland, and Blbri Ige Gerry, of Mass. Alexander Hamilton alone subscribed
for New- York, and Rhode Island was not represented in the Convention. The names
of the u thirty-nine," and the States which they represent* d ar lentiy given.
Note S. — The cession of territory was authorized by New-York, Feb. 19, 17s"; by
nnia, January 2, 1 7^1, and again, (without certain conditions at first imposed, i " at
the;:- gun on the 20th day of October, 1788;" bj Haas., Nov. 13, 1784; by
.-.., May — , 1786; by S. Carolina, March 6, L7^7 ; bj N. Carolina, Dee. — , VH
and b] G ae time prior to April, 1802.
Tii.- deeds of cession were executed by New-York, March 1, 17*1 ; by Virginia,
March l, 1784; by Mass., April 19, 17s-".; by Conn., Sept 13, 17m'.; by S. Carolina,
ist 9, 1787; by N. Carolina, Feb. 25, 1790; and by Georgia, April 24, 1802.
these grants were therefore made before the adoption of the Constitution, and
one afterward ; while the sixtl ' i Carolina) was authorized before, and consum-
mated afterward. The cession of this itains the express proviso "that no
ttionsinade, or to be made by Congress, shall tend to emancipate slaves."
■ in nt Georgia conveys the Territory subject to the Ordinance of 's7, except the
: — i » » 1 1 prohibiting slavery.
These dates are also interesting in connection with the extraordinary assertions of
Chief Justice Taney, (19 Bow, pagi 134,) that "the example "i Virginia was b
, ' and tii a i p. 486 1 the power in the Constitution
. i make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other
prop onging to the Cnil i onlj "to transfer to the new
rnroent the property then held in common, " "and ha be whatever to any
Territory "r other property, which the new sovereignty might afterwards itself acquire."
On this subject, vUU Federalist, Xo. t::, sub. 1 an
who afterward framed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and
voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifllin,
and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, (4) thus showing
that, in their understanding, no line dividing loeal from federal
authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Gov-
ernment to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other
of the four — James M'Henry — voted against the prohibition,
showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for
it. (5)
In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention
was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory
still was the only territory owned by the United States, the same
question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before
the Congress of the Confederation ; and two more of the " thirty-
nine " who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Con-
gress, and voted on the question. They were William Blount and
William Few ;(6) and they both voted for the prohibition — thus
showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from
federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal
Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. This
time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well
known as the Ordinance of '87.(7)
Note 4. — Sherman was from Connecticut; Mifflin from Penn.; Williamson from
North Carolina, and M'Henry from Maryland.
Note 5. — What Mr. M'Henry's views were, it seems impossible to ascertain. When
the Ordinance of '87 was passed he was sitting in the Convention. He was afterward ap-
pointed Secretary of War; yet no record has thus far been discovered of his opinion.
Mr. M'Henry also wrote a biography of La Fayette, which, however, cannot be found
in any of the public libraries, among which may be mentioned the State Library at
Albany, and the Astor, Society, and Historical Society Libraries, at New- York.
Hamilton says of him, in a letter to Washington, ( Works, vol. 6, p. 65): " M'Henry
you know. He would give no strength to the Administration, but he would not dis-
grace the office ; his views are good."
Note 6. — William Blount was from North Carolina, and William Few, from Geor-
gia— the two States which afterward ceded their territory to the United States. In ad-
dition to these facts the following extract from the speech of Rufus King in the Senate,
on the Missouri Bill, shows the entire unanimity with which the Southern States approved
the prohibition : —
" The State of Virginia, which ceded to the United States her claims to this Territory,
consented, by her delegates in the old Congress, to this Ordinance. Not only Virginia,
but North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, by the unanimous votes of their dele-
gates in the Old Congress, approved of the Ordinance of 1787, by which Slavery is
forever abolished in the Territory northwest of the river Ohio. Without the votes of
these States the Ordinance could not have been passed ; and there is no recollection of
an opposition from any of these States to the act of contirmation passed under the
actual Constitution."
Note 7. — "The famous ordinance of Congress of the 13th July, 1787, which has
ever since constituted, in most respects, the model of all our territorial governments,
and is equally remarkable for the brevity and exactness of its text, and for its masterly
E
The question of federal control of slavery in ritorie$, seems
not to liu\ ution which framed
a ; and hence it is not n rded that this "thirty*
iih. them, while engaged on that instrument, ex]
anv Opinion 6n that precise question. (8)
if the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty." — Justice Btoryt 1
. §1812.
•■ [| js well known th.it the 0 iwn by the Hon. Nathan Dune,
, :m 1 adopted with lyaverbal alteration by • It is a
Dobleand imperishable monument to bis fame." — /•/. note.
iQrted by a committee, of which Wm. S. Johnson and Charles
•■ were in. ! : i til a, •• for i *the fund I principles of
civil and religious liberty, which i basis whereon th iblics, their laws
tthd constitutions, are erected ; to fix and establish those principles as the basis ofaVl
ttionsand governments which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said
Territory; to provide also for the establishment of States and permanent government,
and for their ado laral councils, on an equal footing with the,
original States, at as early perio int with the general interest —
"It is 1 I and declared, by the authority aforesaid, that the following
articles shall bo censidered-as articles of compact between the original States and the
people and States in the said Territory, and forever remain unalterable; unless by com-
mon consent, to wit:"
"Art. 6. There shall be neither luntary servitude in the said Terri-
. otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have b
duly convicted; provided al ways that any person escaping into the same, from whom
labor or - - lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, Buch fugitive may
be lawfully reclaimed, an 1 conveyed to the person claiming o-8 or her labor or service."
i passing the ordinance, the ayes' and nays were required by Judge Yates, uf New-
Fork, when it appeared tli'it his was the only vote in t/u -<
The ordinance of April 2 '•• was a.briof outline of that of '87. It was reported
by a Committee, of which Mr. Jefferson was chairman, and the report contained a
. i-y prohibition intended to take effect iu 1800. This was stricken out of the report,
~iates voting t'i r tain it — three voting to Btrike out — one being divided ( \. C.,)
and the others not being represented (The assent of nine States wa.s necessary to re-
tain any • in.) And t! i vote alluded to by Mr. Lincoln. But sul
quently, March 16, 17s'>, amotion was made byRufus King to commit a proposition
"that there be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude" In any of the -Territories ;
which was carried by the vote of eight States, including Maryland. — Journal Am. Con-
gress, vol. 4, pp. 873, 880, 481, 7-
When, then • ordinance of 'Si came before Congress, on its final passage, the
ubition ha 1 b '"' for nearly three years ; and the de-
liberate and almost unanimous vote of tint body upon that question leaves no room to
doubt what the fathers believed, and how, in that belief, they acted.
Nor S. — It singularly and fortunately happens that one of the "thirty-nine,'' "while
. on that instrument," \iz., while advocating its ratification before the Pennsylva-
onvention, did express an opinion u] testion," which opinion was
tr disputed or i mention, and was accepted by the
• ostitution, as an indisputable fact, I irated Ja
•Ivania. The opinion is as follows : —
Mo.m.av, Dec. 3, IT
"Witl. respect to the ibiting the migration or
ill think proper to ad-
mit, prior to I : The Hon. gentleman Bays that this clause is not only d i
but intend ■■ for that ti > admit the importation of
thing was int done, and it gives
isnre that so much was don ration, tb -
.it the im; ■; but by this article, after the j
11 have power to p ition, notwithstanding
disposition ol I con le foundation for
bail. tvery out of this country ; and though the -more distant than I could
wUh, yet it will produci inge which was pursued in Pennsylvania.
In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution,
an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the
prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for
this act was reported by one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas Fitz-
simmons, then a member of the House of "Representatives from
Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of
opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and
nays, which is equivalent to an unanimous passage. (9) In this Con-
gress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed
the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas
Gilman, ATm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Eobert Morris, Thos.
It is with much satisfaction that I view this power in the general government, whereby
they may lay an interdiction on this reproachful trade. But an immediate advantage is
also obtained ; for a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding
$10 for each person; and this, sir, operates as a partial prohibition; it was all that could
be obtained. I am sorry it was no more ; but from this I think there is reason to hope
that yet a few years, and it will be prohibited altogether. And in the meantime, the
new States which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress in this particu-
lar, and slaves will never be introduced amongst them." — 2 Elliott's Debates, 423.
It was argued by Patrick Henry in the Convention in Virginia, as follows :
" May not Congress enact that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little
of this in the last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general.
But acts of Assembly passed, that every slave who would go to the army should be free.
Another thing will contribute to bring this event about. Slavery is detested. We feel
its fatal effects. We deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considera-
tions press with full force on the minds of Congress. Let that urbanity which, I trust,
will distinguish America, and the necessity of national defence — let all these things
operate on their minds, they will search that paper, and see if they have power of man-
nmission. And have they not, sir ? Have they not power to provide for the general
defence and welfare ? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery?
May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power ?
There is no ambiguous implication, no logical deduction. The paper speaks to the
point ; they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly
exercise it." — 3 Elliot? s Debates, 534.
Edmund Randolph, one of the framers of the Constitution, replied to Mr. nenry, ad-
mitting the general force of the argument, but claiming that, because of other provisions,
it had no application to the States where slavery then existed ; thus conceding that
power to exist in Congress as to all territory belonging to the United States.
Dr. Ramsay, a member of the Convention of South Carolina, in his history of
the United States, vol. 3, pages 36, 37, says: " Under these liberal principles, Congress,
in organizing colonies, bound themselves to impart to their inhabitants all the privileges
of coequal States, as soon as they were capable of enjoying them. In their infancy,
government was administered for them without any expense. As soon as they should
have 60,000 inhabitants, they were authorized to call a convention, and, by common
consent, to form their own constitution. This being done, they were entitled to repre-
sentation in Congress, and every right attached to the original States. These privileges
are not confined to any particular country or complexion. They are communicable to
the emancipated slave, (for in the new State of Ohio, slavery is altogether prohibited), to
the copper-colored native, and all other human beings who, after a competent residence
and degree of civilization, are capable of enjoying the blessings of regular government."
Note 9. — The Act of IT 89, as reported by the Committee, was received and read
Thursday, July 16th. The second reading was on Friday, the 17th, when it was com-
mitted to the Committee of the whole house, " on Monday next." On Monday, July
20th, it was considered in Committee of the whole, and ordered to a third reading on the
following day ; on the 21st, it passed the House, and was sent to the Senate. In the
Senate it had its first reading on the same day, and was ordered to a second reading on
the following day, (July 22d,) and on the 4th August it passed, and on the 7th was
approved by the President.
ro
I • • •,. , William Few. Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King,
William Patereon, G< I r, Iti<-h:u-. 1 Baisett,<3 ge Read,
Butler, Daniel ( Jarroll, James Madison. (10)
bows that, in their understanding, no line dividing lo
l'n.m federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly
1 1 ess to prohibit slavery in the federal territory: else
th their fidelity to correct principle* and their oath to support
the i :tuti<m, would have constrained them to oppose the pro-
hibition,
. i; • • \V. diington, another of the u thirty-nine,'' was
then President of the United States, and, L approved and
oed the bill J thus coin. 5 its validity as a law, and thus
showing that, in his understanding, nd line dividing local from
leral authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the
leral Government, to control as to slavery in federal territory.
N 1 great while alter the adoption of the original Constitution,
N ■- . Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now
constituting th. • State of T ; and a J ars later Georgia
Led that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and
Alabama Da both deeds of cession it was made a condition by
the ceding States that the Federal Government should not pro-
hibit slavery in the ceded country. (11) Besides this, slavery ..
then actually in the ceded country. L'nder these circumstances,
I wn taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely
I rohil it slavery within them. But they did interfere with it —
take control of it — even there, to a certain extent In 1793, Con-
gress organized the Territory of Mississippi In the act of organ.
i, they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory, i'rom
any place without the United -. by fine, and giving freedom
to slaves so brought. (12) This act passed both branches of Congr
without yeas and nays. In that Con were three of the
"thirty-nine" who framed the original Constitution, They were
Johi !. : 0,-G Read and Abraham Baldwin. (13) They all,
; in. — The " ' ted tl [don and Gilman, New
Hampshire; Sherman and Johnson, Connecticut; Morris, Fitzsimmons and Clymer,
P osylvania; King, Massa ion, New Jeisey; Few and Baldwin, Georgia;
an i Read, D< laware ; Butler, Booth Carolina; Carroll, Maryland ; and Madison,
inia.
I 11 — V 3, ante.
(fan l-.—' , ?' 7, L'. S. Statutes, 6th Congress, 2d s.— ion.
Now 18. — Langdon was from New Hampshire, Read from Delaware, and Baldwin
from (ioorgia.
11
probablv, voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their
opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line
dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitu-
tion, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to
slavery in federal territory.
In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana
country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of
our own States ; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a
foreign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a territorial organization
to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana.
New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively
lartre citv. There were other considerable towns and settlements,
and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the
people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery ;
but they did interfere with it — take control of it — in a more
marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mis-
sissippi. The substance of the provision therein made, in relation
to slaves, was :
First. That no slave should be imported into the territory from
foreign parts.
Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been
imported into the United States since the first da}>- of May, 1798.
Third. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the
owner, and for his own use as a settler ; the penalty in all the
cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to
the slave. (14)
This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Con-
gress which passed it, there were two of the " thirty-nine." They
were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. (15) As stated in the
case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They
would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposi-
tion to it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the line
properly dividing local from federal authority, or any provision of
the Constitution.
In 1819-2(), came and passed the Missouri question. Many
votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress,
upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the
Note 14. — Chap. 38, § 10, TJ. S. Statutes, 8th Congress, 1st Session.
Note 15. — Baldwin was from Georgia, and Dayton from New Jersey.
12
" thirtv-nine "' — Rafhfl King and Charles Pinckney — ^ere mem-
rs of that i 5.(16) Mr. Bang steadily voted forslavoy pro-
hibition and against all oompromises, while Mr. Pinckney i
steadily voted against . prohibition and against all com-
promises. 1*. v this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding,
no line dividi al from federal authority, nor anything in the
Constitution, was violated by Con prohibiting slavery in
fedi rritory; while Mr. Pinokney t by his votes, showed that,
in his understanding, th . TK-ient reason for opposing
b prohibition in that case. (17)
1 have mentioned are the only acts of the ll thirty-
nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, "which I have
en able to discover.
To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784,
two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 179S, two in In'M. and
Koti 16. — Rufas King, who sat in the old Congress, and also in the Convention, as
the representative of Massachusetts, removed to New-York and was sent by that State
to the U. S. Senate of the lirst Congress. Charles Pinckney was in the House, as a repre-
tative of South Carolina.
. 17. — Although Mr. Tinckney opposed "slavery prohibition-' in 1820, yet his
views, with regard to the pouera of the general government, may be better judged by his
actions in the Convention:
1 ;.;i'.iy, June Bth, 1*161. — "Mr. Pinckney moved 'that the National Legislature
shall have the power of negativing all laws to be passed by the State Legislatures, which
they may judge improper, in the room of the clause as it stood p ported.
•• Be grounds his motion on the necessity of one supreme controlling power, and he
iders this as the corner-stone of the pre-, nt system; and hence, the necessity of
retrenchi State authorities, in order to preserve the good government of the
national council." — P. 400, Elliott's Debates.
And again, Tin km. av, AnguM --</, 17t>7, Mr. Pinckney renewed the motion with
some modifications. — P. 1409, Afadiso/i Papers.
And although Mr. Pinckney, as correctly stated by Mr. Lincoln, " steadily voted
ry prohibition, and against all compromises," he .-till regarded the passage
of the Missouri Compromise as a great triumph of the South, much is apparent from
the following letter.
Congress Hall, March 2d, 1820, 3 o'clock at night.
. : — I hasten to inform you, that this moment WJI hive carried the qn-
. Imit Missouri, and all Louisiana to the southward of 86Q 30', free from the restric-
tion of slavery, and give the South, in a short time, an addition of six, perhaps eight,
in..-: • the Senate of the UnitedStates. It is considered here by the slaveholding
- a great triumph
Ihe ■ —ninety to eighty-six — produced by the see. ding and absence
. :'. \\ moderate men from the North. To the north of 86° 80', there is to be, by the
nt law. restriction ; which you will see by the f&U -. 1 voted against. But it is at
oment; it i- a vast tract, uninhabited, only by savages and wild bea
in which not a foot of the Indian claims to soil is extinguished, and in which, according
to tl. revalent, no land office will be open..] for a, g reat length of time.
With : ■ lUT obedient Servant,
CIIAK1.I1S riMKNEY.
But •• of Mr. Pin : irnished in the fact, that At- was
.••If a a. f the Committee which reported the Ordinance 0/^*87, and that en
■ •(, V hen itwu under the coniidei f Congrci d against all
-Jour. Am. Com 29th, 1786. 0ct\4tk. When the ordinance
came up for its linul | Sir. Pinckney wa.« sitting in the Convention, and did not
take part in the pwx ' >ngress.
13
two in 1819-20 — there would be thirty of them. But this would
be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus
King, and George Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin, three
times. The true number of those of the "thirty-nine'' whom I
have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text,
they understood bettor than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen
not shown to have acted upon it in any way. (18)
Ilerc, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers
" who framed the Government under which we live," who have,
upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted
upon the very question which the text affirms they -' understood
just as well, and even better than we do now;" and twenty-one
of them — a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine" — so acting
upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and
wilful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division •
between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitu-
tion they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal terri-
tories. Thus the twenty-one acted ; and, as actions speak louder
than words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder.
Two of the twent}T- three voted against Congressional prohibition
of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they
acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is
not known. They may have done so because they thought a
proper division of local from federal authority, or some provision
or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way ; or they may,
without any such question, have voted against the prohibition, on
what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency.
No one who has sworn to support the Constitution, can conscien-
tiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional
measure, however expedient he may think it ; but one may and
ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional, if,
at the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be
unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition,
as having done so because, in their understanding, any proper di-
vision of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitu-
Note 18. — By reference to notes 4, 6, 10, 13, 15 and 16, it will be seen that, of the
twenty-three who acted upon the question of prohibition, twelve were from the present
Blaveholding States.
H
don, forbade the Federal Gtorermnent to control aa to slavery in
federal territory. (1
The remainin • »« thirty-cine, ? bo far as 1 have
di i. have left do record of their understanding upon the
direct question of federal i I of slavery in the federal territo-
ries. B b there is much n to believe that their understanding
upon that question would not have appeared different from thai
th ■. .-nty-tlinv eon bad it been manifeeted at alL(20)
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text* 1 have pur-
posely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifei
by any person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine
bers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same
reason, L bave also omitted whatever understanding mav have been
inanifested by any of the "thirty-nil on any other phase
■°i' I neraJ question of slavery. If we should look into their
apts and declarations on those other phases, aa the foreign slave
trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would
appear to us that on the direct question of federal control of
slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had act, d at all,
would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among
that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of
those times — as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and GrOUVer-
ueur Morris — while there was not one now known to have been
otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.(2l)
n 19. — Vide DOtefl b and 17, ante
.V.. it. 20. — "The remaining sixteen" were Nathaniel Gorham, Mass.; Alex. Ilam-
iltoi fork; WHIiam Livingston and David Brearly, New Jersey; Benjamin
Franklin, Jared Engenoll, Jamee Wilson and Gouverneur Morris, Penn.; Gunni
son and Jacob Broom. Delaware; Danii I, of St Thomas, Jen I
land; John Blair, Virginia; Richard i right, North Carolina; and John
Rutledge and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina,
Noil 21. — " The only distinction between freedom and slavery consists in this: in the
former - rned by the laws to which he has given his consent, either in
on or by his i ;tiw ; in the hater, he is governed by the will of another. In
the i his life and property arc his own; in the other, they depend upon the
pleasure of a master. Ltiseasy to discern which of, the two states is preferable. No
man in hi hesitate in choosing to be free rather than slave * * * *
• •••• i R the disad of slavery too obvious to stand in
of it, I might enumerate and describe the I in of fftl»miti<m insepara
it I might -how that it is fatal to religion and morality; that it tends to del
mind, and corrupt its noblest springs of action. I might show that it relaxes the
f industry and clips the wings of commerce, and works miser] and indigence
in every ihape." — Hamilton, Work*, vol. 2., pp. 3, '.'.
"That von will be | luntenancc the restoration of liberty to those un-
happj m. n, who al >ne in this land ol freedom, ai • perpetoal bondage,
. ;i joj of surround i n, are groaning in servile Bubjec-
. that you will devise means for removing this inoonsistencj from the character of
people; that yon will promote mercy mid justice toward this distressed
15
The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who
framed the original Constitution, twentY-one — a clear majority ol
the whole — certainly understood that no proper division of local
from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade
the Ke< leral Government to control slavery in the federal terri tori
while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, un-
questionably, was the understanding of our lathers who framed the
original Constitution ; and the text afhrnis that they understood
the question "better than we."
But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the
question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution.
In and by the original instrument, a mode was jn'ovided for
amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of
" the Government under which we live " consists of that original,
and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those
who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories
violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they
suppose it thus violates ; and, as I understand, they all fix upon
provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original
instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant
themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no
person shall be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due
process of law ;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents
plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that " the
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,"
" are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (22)
race ; and that you will step to the very verge of the power vested in you for discou-
raging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men." — Philadelphia, Feb.
3d, 1790. Franklin's Petition to Congress for the Abolition of Slavery.
Mr. Gouverneur Morris said: — "He never would concur in upholding domestic
slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where
it prevailed. * * * The admission of slavery into the representation, when fairly
explained, comes to this — that the inhabitant of South Carolina or Georgia, who goes
to the coast of Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity , tears away
his fellow-creatures from their dearest connections, and damns them to the most cruel
bondage, shall have more votes, in a government instituted for the protection of the
rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pennsylvania or Xew Jersey, who views, with a
laudable horror, so nefarious a practice. ******* jje would sooner
submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in the United States than saddle
posterity with such a constitution." — Debate cm Slave Representation in the. Conven-
tion.— Madison Papers.
Note 22. — An eminent jurist (Chancellor Walworth) has said that "The preamble
which was prefixed to these amendments, as adopted by Congress, is important to show in
what light that body considered them." (8 Wend. P., p. 100.) It declares that a number
of the State Conventions "having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed
.a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further de-
claratory and restrictive clauses should be added," resolved, &c.
\>;
Now, it so happens that these an mts wore framed by the
first 0 9 which sat under the Constitution — the identical
C which passed the already mentioned, enforcing the
prohibition of sli in the North.'. [Territory. Not only
was it the same I but they were thi tical, same indi-
vitlual men who, ;it the sac ad at the .-amr time within
, had under consideration, ami in pi toward ma-
turity, these Constitutional amendments, and this art prohibiting
. in all the territory the nation then L The Consti-
tutional a: te ..'■:■'• introduced before, ami passed alter the
act enfon 0 nuance of '87; so that, during the whole
the aet to enforce the Ordinance, the Constitutional
amendmeni pending. (23)
The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen
of the trainers of the original Constitution, as bei ted, were
pre-eminently our fathers who'framed that part of "the Govern-
•it under which we live, which is now claimed as forbidding
the Federal G< >vemment to control slavery in the federal territories.
Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm
that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and
ear maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent
with each other? And does not such affirmation become impu-
3urd when coupled with the other affirmation from the
:ie mouth, that those who did the two things, alleged to be in-
tent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better
than we — I I r than lie who affirms that they are inconsistent?
It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine l'ramers of the
original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congr. -
unable is in BabBtance the preamble affixed to the " Conciliatory Resolutions^
of Id . which were drawn by Chief Justice Parsons, ami offered in the Con-
i 'V John Hancock. {Life CK. J. Partont,<p. 67.) They were
ted with some additions by New Hampshire.
The fifth aim-ndim-nt, on which the Supreme Court relies, is taken almost literally from
the declaration of rights put forth by the convention of New-York, and the clause re-
fern d to forms the ninth paragraph of the declaration. The truth amendment, on which
itor Douglas relii i-n from the Conciliator; Resolutions) and is tho first of
-olutions somewhat modified. Thus, these tn 0 amendmenta sought to be used for
originated in the two great anti-slavery Btatea, rfen York and Massachusetts.
N'oie 23. — The amendments were proposed DT Mr. Madison in the House of Repre-
sent. ine8, 1789. The; were adopted by the House, August 2+, and some further
.i to have been transmitted by the E September 9. The printed
journals of ti do not state the time of the final passage, and the meesagatjanamit-
them to ti..> Bl ite !.• rialatures speaks of them as adopted at the first session, begun
ortb day of March, ITS'.'. The dato of the introduction and passage of the act
enforcing tho ordinance of '87, will be found at note 9, ante.
17
which framed the amendments 'thereto, taken together, do certainly
include those who rrialj be i'airly Called '"our fathers who framed
the Government utider which we li\e."(24) And so assuming, I
defy any man to show that anyone of them ever, in his whole lite,
declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local
from federal authority, or any )iartof the Constitution, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal terri-
tories. I go a step further. I defy any one t< i show that any
living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the bfegiaifjng of
the present century, (and I might almost say prior to the beginning
of the last half of the present century,) declare that, in his under-
standing, any proper division of local from federal authority, or
any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to
control as to slavery in the federal territories. To those who now
so declare, I give, not only "our fathers who framed the Govern
ment under which we live," but with them all other living men
within the century in which it was framed, among whom to
search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single
man agreeing with them.
Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunder
stood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in
whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the
lights of current experience — to reject all progress — all improve-
ment. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions
and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evi-
dence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great
authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand ; and most
surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood
the question better than we.
If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division
of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution,
forbids the Federal Government to control as to slaver}' in the
federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position
by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he
has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history,
and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that " our fathers,
Note 24. — It is singular tb;it while two ot the " thirty-nine " were in that
Congress of 1819, there was but one (besides Mr. King) of the "seventy -six." The
one was William Smith, of South Carolina. lie was then a Senator, and, like Mi.
Pinckney, occupied extreme Southern ground.
2
18
wh i anient under whi Live," were of the
opinion — thus substituting falsehood and deception
truthful evid< and fair argument If any man at tlii.s daj
'our Gathers who foamed the Government under
used :m<l applied principles, in other cases, which
•it to have led them to understand that a proper division
Loral authority or some part of tin' Constitution, :'■
Federal Government to control i slavery in I
is right to say so. But he should, at I
san . brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opin-
. he understands their principles better than they did them-
• and especially should >he not shirk that responsibility by
; that they ••understood the tion jusl as well, and
•• ••. than we do now."
But enoughl Let all who believe that " ounfathers, wbp framed
the Govern i nod under which we live, understood this question ,
\ than we do speak as they yoke, and act as
they ac m it. This is all Republicans ask — all Republicans de-
— ' -lation to slavery. As those fathers ma ■' it be
h marked, as an evil not to he extended, hut to be tolerated and
only because of and so far as its actual presence among us
makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the yxaran-
thosefath it, be, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly main-
tained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I
orb lieve, they will be content.
A:, i now, if they would listen — as I suppose they will not — I
would address a few words to the Southern people.
I would say to them: — You consider yotuservesa reasonable
and a just bebple : and 1 consider that in the general qualities of
reason and justice you ate not interior to any other people. Still,
when 3 ak of us Republicans^ you d nly; to, denounce
•. at the b no better than outlaw STouwill
:it a 1 to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to
• Black Republican : In all your contentions with One another.
each o . leems an unconditional condemnation of.;" Black B
publicanism" first thing to be attended to. I, such
Lofua be an indispensable prerequisite-
license, so to speak — among yon to be admitted or permitted to
ak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed Upon to pan-'
19
and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to your-
selves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then
be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.
You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue ;
and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof;
and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in
your section — gets no votes in your section. The fact is
substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does,
then in case we should, without change of principle, begin
to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be
sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion ; and yet, are
you willing to abide by it ? If you are, you will probably
soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get
votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to dis-
cover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the
issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of
your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact,
that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that
we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel
you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours ; but
this brings you to where you ought to have started — to a discussion
of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in
practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for
any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional,
and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then,
on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would
wrong your section ; and so meet us as if it were possible that
something may be said on our side. Do you accept the chal-
lenge ? No ! Then you really believe that the principle which
" our fathers who framed the Government under which we live"
thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and
again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to
demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.
Some of you delight to flaunt in our' faces the warning against
sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address.
Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he
had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an
act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the North-
western Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Govern-
20
: ject up to and at & at h-- penned
t h;ii v.. : and about ear after be •■ wrote
■ • that he - I that prohibition :i wise m<
I'f same connection his hope that tould at some
time have a confederacy of fr< - . 25)
in mind, and seeing '.hat I >nalism has since
ark "ii this same - that •. in in your
lia; inst us, or in our han u? Could Washington
himself speak, would he cast the bla rnalism upon
kin his policy, or upon,you who repudiate it'.' We
respect that warning of Was]iingtpn, and we commend it to you,
with his example pointingto the it
Bu1 you say you are c^nservative^r-eminently conservative —
while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something <»t' the sort
What atism? [s it not adheren the. old and tried,
m?t the new and untried'.' We stick to, contend for,, the
(I old policy on tin- point in controversy whi<-h was adopted by
"our fathers v.1p> framed the Government under whieh we liye, :"
you with mie accord rejectjfand scout, and -pit upon that old
policy, and insist upon substituting - uing new;. True, you
disagree amoug yourselves ;t< l" what that substitute shall be.
•t are divided on uew propositions and plans, but you are una-
nimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the lathers.
Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade ; some for a
Congressional Slave-Codr lor the Territories ; some id]- Cbngn ss
forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limil
.-■•me for maintaining Slavery in the territories tb i the judi-
some ;' ■:• the "gur-real purrrinciple" that ••it' one man
would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically
Note 'J.">. — The following i- au extraj t from the leu. . . : —
'• I agree with you cordially in your vie'wa in regard t" negro Blavery. 1 have long
riduiJ evil, both socially and politically, ami I should rejoice in
States of such a burden. The Congress of 178^ adopted
an ordinance which prohibits the existence of udvbrontary servitude in our North-
. territory forever. I- ii a wis* It Inftets with the approval
and assent o:' member from the States more immediately interested in Blare
r. The prevailing opinion in Virginia is o| ofalavery in our new
tcrrit.>ri. I trust we Bhall have a confederation of free States."
The tract from a tetter of Washington to Robert Morris, April 1 2th.
as 1 how clearly he deemed emancipation
ptment: — "1 can only lay that thert is Ho' man living
. wished : than 1 do to see a plan adopted for the abolition ot it ; but
..• ia but one proper and effective mode by which it can be accomplished, and that
A.11VK AUTUOi'.iTY, and that, as far ts my ruffragt will ;/<>, shall nacr lie
21
4J i-
called " Popular Sovereignty ;" but never a man among you in
favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, ac-
cording to ,tbe, practice of " our fathers who framed the Govern-
ment under which we live." Not one of all your various plans
can show a precedent or an advocate in trie century within which
our Government originated. Consider, then, wnetner your claim
of conservatism tor yourselves,, and your charge 01 destructive-
ness against us. are based on the most, dear and stable foundations.
Again, you say we have made the slavery question more; promi-
nent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is
more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we,
but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted,
and still resist, your innovation ; and thence comes the greater
prominence of the question. Would you have that question re-
duced to its former proportions ? Go back to that old policy.
What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you
would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and
policy of the old times.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves.
We deny it ; and what is your proof ? Harper's Fern' ! John
Brown ! ! John Brown was no Republican ; and you have failed
to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise.
If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it
or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable
for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not
know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for
persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make
the proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge
which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander. (26)
Note 26. — A Committee of five, consisting of Messrs. Mason, Davis and Fitch,
(Democrats,) and Collamer and Doolittle, (Republicans,) was appointed Dec. 14, 1859,
by the U. S. Senate, to investigate the Harper's Ferry affair. That Committee was di-
rected, among other things, to inquire: (1 ) "Whether such invasion and seizure was
"made under color of any organization intended to subvert the government of any of
"the States of the Union." (2.) " What was the characterand extent of such organiza-
tion." (3.) " And whether any citizens of the United States, not present, were impli-
cated therein, or accessory thereto, by contributions of money, arms, munitions, or
" otherwise,"
The majority of the Committee, Messrs. Mason, Davis, and Fitch, reply to the inqui-
ries as follows :
1. " There will be found in the Appendix, a copy of the proceedings of a Conven-
tion held at Chatham, Canada, of the Provisional Form of Government there pretended
" to have been instituted, the object of which clearly was to subvert the government of
" one or more States, and of course, to that extent, the government of the United States."
, By reference to the copy of Proceedings it appears that nineteen persons were
00
So:. l admit that no Kepublic aided or en'
coil the Harper's Ferry aflair; but still that our doc-
trk L declar sarily lead to such results. We do
lieveit We kno hold to no doctrine, and make no
:i, which wore not held to and made by "our fathers who
framed th G \ rnmenl inder which we live." You never dealt
fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, someim-
■ re near at hand, and you were in evid<
ith the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, yon
at re of us in those elections. The elections
iur expectations were not quite fulfilled Ever)- Re-
publican man knew that, as to himself at hast, your charge was a
ader, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in
your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are accom-
panied with a continual protest against any interference whatever
with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely, i
is not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common
with '"our fathers, who framed the Government under which we
live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the - do
not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the
es would scarcely know there is a Republican part v. I be-
lieve they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your mis-
representations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests
among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy
with Black Republicanism ; and then, to give point to the charge,
. Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and
thunder among the sjavi
present at that Convention, eight of whom ware either killed or executed at Charlestown,
and one examim .1 before the Committee
•j.. "The character ofthe military organization appear-, by th<- eoTnmwwionfl issued to
rtain ofthe armed party as captain-, lieutenants, «v ■■., * specimen of which will be
"lound i'
(Tl. > -ions are signal by John Urown as Commander-in-Chief^ under
Provisional Government, and by J. II. Kagi as Secretary.)
"It clearly app Brown was to take with him comparatively
"but few men; I n carefully trained by military instruction previously,
I were to act as officers. Forhismflit I, very clearly, On inciting
"insurrection
. " It docs not appear that the contributions were made with actual knowledge of
"the use for which tl. I by Brown, although it does appear that money
. , ribufc 1 by tl og themselves the friends of this man Brawn,
b alike of what they st • lom, (of which they claimed
"him to be an especial ape tle,)with ti ring as to toe way in which the money
" would be used by him to esuchpreten
In conelud: I the majority ofthe Committee thus characterize the "inva-
sion:" "It was simply the act of lawless ruffians, tinder the sanction of :ao public or
:itical authority — distinguishable only from ordinary felonies by the ulterior ends
"in contemplation by them," &c
23
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were
before the Republican party was organized. "What induced the
Southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least,
three times as many lives were lost as at Harpers Ferry ? (27) You
can scarcely stretch your very elastic Taney to the conclusion that
Southampton was ; ' got up by Black Republicanism. ? ' In the present
state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or
even a very extensive slave insurrection, ,is possible. The indis-
pensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have
no means of rapid communication ; nor can incendiary freemen,
black or white, supply it The explosive materials are everywhere
in parcels ; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispen-
sable connecting trains.
Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves
for their masters and mistresses ; and a part of it, at least, is true.
A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communica-
ted to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the
life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the
rule ; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to
it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. (28) The gun-
powder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves,
was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted
to the secret ; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend,
Note 27. — The Southampton insurrection, August, 1831, was induced by the re-
markable ability of a slave calling himself General Nat Turner. He led his fellow bond-
men to believe that he was acting under the order of Heaven. In proof of this he
alleged that the singular appearance of the sun at that time was a divine S'gnal for the
commencement of the struggle which would result in the recovery of their freedom.
This insurrection resulted in the death of sixty-four white persons, and more than one
hundred slaves. The Southampton was the eleventh large insurrection in the Southern
States, besides numerous attempts and revolts.
Note 2S. — In March, 1790, the General Assembly of France, on the petition of the
free people of color in St. Domingo, many of whom were intelligent and wealthy, passed
a decree intended to be in their favor, but so ambiguous as to be construed in favor of
both the whites and the blacks. The differences growing out of the decree created two
parties — the whites and the people of color; and some blood was shed. In 1791, the
blacks again petitioned, and a decree was passed declaring the colored people citizens,
who were born of free parents on both sides. This produced great excitement among
the whites, and the two parties armed against each other, and horrible massacres and con-
flagrations followed. Then the Assembly rescinded this last decree, and like results fol-
lowed, the blacks being the exasperated parties and the aggressors. Then the decree
giving citizenship to the blacks was restored, and commissioners were sent out to keep the
peace. The commissioners, unable to sustain themselves, between the two parties, with
the troops they had, issued a proclamation that all blacks who were willing to range
themselves under the banner of the Republic should be free. As a result a very large
proportion of the blacks became in fact free. In 1794, the Conventional Assembly
abolished slavery throughout the French Colonies. Some years afterward the French
Government sought, with an army of 60,000 men to reinstate slavery, but were unsuc-
cessful, and then the white planters were driven from the Island.
24
. the pilot to that friend, and, by consequ< averted the
j, Occ onal pois 3 from the kitchen, and open or
ations in the field, and local revolts exteridinj
:i - ntinue bo occur aa the oatural result
shu but no general insurrection of si I think, can
happen in this country f. -r a long tim ■. \Yh.» \;er much fears, or
much bo] such an event, will be alike disappointed.
the language ofHr. 3 fi rsori, uttered many years ago, ,;Ttis
[] in our power to direct the pfoo :ipatibn, arid de-
lation, peaceably, and in sucn slow di that the evil will
wear off Insensibly; and their places be, parijMissu, filled up by
free white laborers. If, oh the contrary, ii is left to force itself on,
human nature, must shudder at the prospect held up."(29)
Mr. Jefferson did riot mean to say. nor'clo T, that the pow< ■ oi
emancipation i> in the Federal Croverniifent lie spoke of Vir-
i. as to the [lower of enumeration. 1 speak of the sl:v
holding State- only. The Federal Government, HoWeverj as we
insist, has the power of restraining the extensi »ri 1 »f the mstltftrti »n
— the power to insure that a stave insurrection shall never occur
on any American soil which is now free from slavery.
ii Brown's effort was peculiar. It was riot a slave iristrr
tion. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among
slaves, in which the 3 refused to participate, tri taet.it was
50 al -ml that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly
enough it could not succeed- That affair, in its philosophy, cor-
responds with the many attempts, related in history, at the
nation of kings and end An enthusiast broods over
the < a of a people till he fancies hiihself coinniissibned
by HeaVen to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which
ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini's attempt on
Louis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry
re, in their philosophy, precisely thd same. The eagerness to
■ Maine on old England in the one case, and on New England
in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.
And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of
John Brown, Helper's Book, an* 1 the like, break up the Republican
zation ? Human action can be modified to some extent, but
Xoti uv. — Vul' Ji-tr.-r-ui 's Autobiography, commenced Januarj 6th, 1821, Jol'tlr-
son'.s Workri, vol 1, page '< >,
human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a
feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million
and a hall' (5f votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and
feeling — that sentiment — by breaking lip bhe political organization
■which rallies around it. Y<>u can scanvly -ratter and disperse an
army which has been formed into order in the face of your heav-
iest lire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing
the sentiment -which created it out of the peaceful channel of the
ballot-box, into some other channel? What would that other
channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be
lessened or enlarged by the operation?
But. you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial
of your Constitutional rights. (30)
Note 30. — " I am not ashamed or afraid publicly to avow, that the election of
"William H. Seward or Salmon P. Chase, or any .such representative of the Republican
"party, upon a sectional platform, ought to be resisted to the disruption of every tie that
" binds this Confederacy together. (Applause, on the Democratic side of the House. )"
— Mr. Curry, of Alabama, in the House of RepreserUatiMes.
"Just so sure as the Republican party succeed in electing a sectional man, upon
" their sectional, anti-slavery platform, breathing destruction and death to the rights of
" my people, just so sure, in ruy judgment, the time will have come when the South
" must and will take an unmistakable and decided action, and then he who dallies i-
" a dastard, and he who doubts is damned ! I need not tell what I, as a Southern man,
" will do. I think I may safely speak for the masses of the people of Georgia — that
" when that event happens, they, in my judgment, will consider it an overt act, a declara-
" tion of war, and meet immediately in convention, to take into consideration the mode
" and measure of redress. That is my position; -and if that be treason to the Govern-
" ment, make the most of it." — Mr. Gartell% of Georgia, in the House of Representatives.
" 1 said to my constituents, and to the people of the capital of my State, on my
" way here, if such an event did occur," — [i. e., the election of a Republican President,
" upon a Republican platform,] " while it would be their duty to determine the course
" which the State would pursue, it would be my privilege to counsel with them as to
" what I believed to be the proper course; and I said to them, what I say now, and
" what I will always say in such an event, that my counsel would be to take ihdepen-
" dence out of the Union in preference to the los3 of constitutional rights, and pbhse-
" quent degradation and dishonor, in it. That is my position, and it is the position
" which I know the Democratic party of the State of Mississippi will maintain." — Gov.
McRae, of Mississippi.
"It is useless to attempt to conceal the fact that, in the present temper of the
" southern people, it" [i. e., the election of a Republican President] "cannot be, and
" will not be submitted to. The 'irrepressible conflict' doctrine, announced and advo-
" cated by the ablest and most distinguished leader of the Republican party, is an open
" declaration of war against the institution of slavery, wherever it exists ; and I would
" be disloyal to Virginia and the South, if I did not declare that the election of such a
" man, entertaining such sentiment, and advocating such doctrines, ougM to be resisted
" by the slavefiolding States. The idea of permitting such a man to have the control
" and direction of the army and navy of the United States, and the appointment of high
"judicial and executive officers, postmasters included, cannot be entertained by the
" South for a moment." — Gov. Letcher, of Virginia.
"Slavery must be maintained — in the Union, if possible ; out of it, if necessary:
" peaceably if we may ; forcibly if we must." — Sc?tator Iverson, of Georgia.
"Lincoln and Hamlin, the Black Republican nominees, will be elected in Novem-
ber next, and the South will then decide the great question whether they will submit to
the domination of Black Republican rule — the fundamental principle of their organiza-
tion being an open, undisguised, and declared war upon our social institutions. I be-
lieve that the honor and safety of the South, in that contingency, will require the prompt
secession of the slaveholding States from the Union ; and failing then to obtain from
the free States additional and higher guaranties for the protection of our rights and pro-
26
•vhut reckless sound ; but it would be palljal
if by the mere force of
numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written <luwi.
th< i :. But we are proposing rw ion thing.
^ b i make declarati >u have a specific and
I allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of
yours, to take slaves Into the federal ad to hold them
there as j i jr. But no such right is Uy written in I
0 Qstitutibn. That instrumentis literally .silent about any such
tit We, OU the contrary, deny that such a right has any i
the ( 'institution, even by implication.
STour purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will destroy tho
Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the
Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between ;.
and us. You will rule or ruin in all event-.
This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the
Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional epiestion
in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction
between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question
for you in a sort of way. The Court have substantially said, it is
your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territor .
I to hold them there as property. AVhen I say the decision was
made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court, by
a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one
: the reasons for making it ; (31) that it is so made as that
pcrty, that the seceding States should proceed to establish a new government. But
while I think Buch would be the imperative duty of the South, I should emphatically re-
liate any scheme having for its object the separate Mi i f South
Carolina, [f Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi alone — giving us a portion of the
lantic -would unite with this State in a common
.. publican, I would give my assent to the policy." — Letter of' Hon.
Jam \ I.. 0 /., to John Martin and others, Jul;/ 23, 18G0.
« Kon 81. — i The Hon. John A. Andrew, of the Boston Bar, made the following analy-
sis of the Dred E ■ in the MassaehuMtts legislature. Hon. Caleb (fashing- was
.' body, but did not question its conrectm
"On the question of possibility of citizenship to one of tin- Dred Scott eolor, extraction,
I origin, three , Wayne and Daniels, held the negative. Nol
| Campbell passed brer the- plea by winch tho question was raised. Grier agreed
withKel ■ said the question was not open. McLean agreed with Catron,
but thought the plea bad. Curtis agreed thai the question was open, but attacked the
- averments, and decided that a free born colored person, native to any
, is a citizen thereof, bj birth, and is 'herefore a citizen of the Union, and entitled
the]
"Had a majority of the court directly sustained the pi t in. abatement, and I
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court appealed from, then nil else they could have said
and done would 1. ive been done and paid in u cause not theirs to try and not theirs to
ass. In t jority, one step more (was to be taken, And the
next step reveals nn agi t of the Jtbboss, on a point decisive of the cause,
ani putting an end to all tin- functions of the court
27
its avowed supporters disagree with, one another about its meaning,
and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact —
the statement in tho opinion that " the right of property in a slave
is distinctly and expressly affirmed in tho Constitution." (32)
An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of
property in a slave is not " distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it.
Bear in mind, the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that
such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution ; but they
pledge their veracity that it is " distinctly and expressly" affirmed
there — "distinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else — " ex-
pressly," that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of
any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right
is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to
others to show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to
be found in the Constitution, nor the word " property " even, in
any connection with language alluding to the things slave, or
slavery, and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded
to, he is called a "person;" — and wherever his master's legal
" It is this. Scott was first carried to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, where he
remained about two years, before going with his master to Fort Snelling, in the Terri-
tory of Wisconsin. His claim to freedom was rested on the alleged effect of his trans-
lation from a slave State, and again into a free territory. If, by his removal to Illinois,
he became emancipated from his master, the subsequent continuance of his pilgrimage
into the Louisiana purchase could not add to his freedom, nor alter the fact. If, by
reason of any want or infirmity in the laws of Illinois, or of conformity on his part to
their behests, Dred Scott remained a slave while he remained in that State, then — for the
sake of learning the effect on him of his territorial residence beyond the Mississippi, and of
his marriage and other proceedings there, and the effect of the sojournment and marriage
of Harriet, in the same territory, upon herself and her children — it might become needful
to advance one other step into the investigation of the law ; to inspect the Missouri Com-
promise, banishing slavery to the south of the line of 3G° 30' in theLouisiana purchase.
" But no exigency of the cause ever demanded or justified that advance ; for six of
the Justices, including the Chief Justice himself, decided that the status of the plaintiff,
as free or slave, was dependent, not upon the laws of the State into which he had been,
but of the State of Missouri, in which he was at the commencement of the suit. The
Chief Justice asserted that ' it is now firmly settled by the decisions of the highest court
in the State, that Scott and his family, on their return were not free, but were, by the
laws of Missouri, the property of the defendant.' This was the burden of the opinion
of Nelson, who declares ' the question is one solely depending upon the law of Mis-
souri, and that the federal Court, sitting in the State, and trying the case before us, was
bound to follow it.' It received the emphatic endorsement ot Wayne, whose general
concurrence was with the Chief Justice. Grier concurred in set terms with Nelson on
all ' the questions discussed by him.' Campbell says, ' The claim of the plaintiff to
freedom depends upon the effect to be given to his absence from Missouri, in company
with his master in Illinois and Minnesota, and this effect is to be ascertained by refer-
ence to the laws of Missouri.1 Five of the Justices, then, (if no more of them,) regard
the law of Missouri as decisive of the plaintiff's rights."
Note 32. — "Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion upon a
different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in
the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and
property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States in every State that might
desire it for twenty years." — Ch. J. Taney, 19 How. U. S. Ii., p. 451. Vide language
of Mr. Madison, note 34, as to " merchandise."
28
ht in relation to him is alluded toj it is n p£ as ".service
labor which may I a debt payable in Ben Lee or
\ -->. it would be open to show, bv contemporaneous
that this in' alluding and alayery, instead
of them, was em] d on }■ to • ■.■ : I from
□stitntiop the idea that there could be j • in man.
To shqw all this, is easy and eertaiit (34)
'. was the rl ertj not Intended to be "distinctly and
■ affirmed in the Constitution ;"' but the following extract fronvMr. Madison
• that the utmi - : —
" Tl as originally i ' ■ I [t< ad 'If any person
i.r.iiALi.v Lou; . .ice or labor in any of th I into another
[\ 61, 8, p. l t :.■'.. i hi regard to this, Mr. Madi-oii say-, "The term
'legally* was struck out, and the words 'under the laws thereof.' inserted after the
i State, in compliance mth the wish of some who thought the term Mi -'.rally' equivo-
cal and favoring the Idea that .-luwry was legal in a moral [mint of view." — lb., p. 1580.
3 1. — 'AY Blibjoin a portion of (he bistoxj allude i to by Mr. Lincoln. The fol-
lowing extract, relates to the provision of the Constitution relative to the .-lave trade.
I Artie!.- 1. EfcC. '.'.1
'J.".7( August, 17^7. — The report of the Committee of eleven being taken up, Gen.
iries Coteswocthl JPinckney moved tb -trike out the words "the year ISQO," and
insert the words "the year b^."
Mr. Gbrham seconded the motion.
Mr. Mali-on — Twi-nt;. • \ears will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended
from the liberty to import slaves. So lohgaVcrm will be more dishonorable to the
American character than to toy nothing about it in the t'on.-titution.
* * ' . * » * * *
Mr. Crouverneur Morris was for making the clause read at once —
"Th'i importation of .-laves into North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, shall
not be prohibited,'' fie.
he siid, would be most fair, and would avoid the ambiguity by which, under
the pow. r with regard to naturalization the liberty reserved to the S ites might be de-
I. He wished1 it to be known, ul.-o, that this part of the Constitution was a com-
pliance with those States. If the change of language, however, should be objected to
by the members from those States, j ;eit.
. liason, (of \'a..| was not against using the term " slaves," but against naming
Vorth < irolina, South Carolina, and i . lest it should giveoffence to the people of
States.
Mi. Sherman liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been de-
clined by the • , and were not pleasing tb some people.
Mr. i I Hfcr6d with Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Wllhan North Carolina, said that both in opinion and practicehe was againtt
ilacr>/: i>d thought it mot* in favor of Humanity ,7V din a view of all circumstance*, to
I and Georgia, on those termx, than to exclude them from the Union,
Mr. Morris withdrew his motion.
Hr, Diekmsbn wished the clause to be confined to the States which had not them-
selves prohibited the importation of sla\es, and for that purpose moved to amend the
clause so a- to read —
M The importation oj mchofthj '11 permit the same, shall not
rohifrited by the Legislature of the Chited States, until the year 1808,'' which was
. . d i". •
■ irt wa- then agreed to as follows:
•• The migration or importation of such persons as the .- vera! State-; now existing shall
think proper to admit, shall nui be prohi slature prior to the year 1S08."
Mr. Sherman was against the second part, ["but a tax or duty may be imposed on
such migration or importation at a rate not exceeding the average of the dvtiit laid on
import*?'1] as acknowledging men to be property by taxing them as such under the
char tlavcs.
Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in tht Constitution the idea that titer* <oa'.l
2S»
When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to
theirnotice, is it not reasonable to <\; eel thai they will withdraw the
mistaken statement, and reeoiasider the conclusion based upon it?
And then it is to be remembered that " our fathers, who framed
the Government under which we live" — the men who made the
Constitution — decided this same Constitutional question in our fa-
vor, long ago — decided it without division among themselves, when
making the decision; without division among tin imseTves' about
the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is
left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves
justified to break up this Government, unless such a court deci-
sion as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and
final rule of political action ? But you will not abide the election
of a Republican President ! In that supposed event, you say, you
will destroy the Union ; and then, yon say, the great crime of hav-
ing destroyed it will be upon us ! That is cool. A highwayman
holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, " Stand
and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer !''
To be sure, what the robber demanded of me — mv moncv —
was my own ; and I had a clear right to keep it : btlt it was no
more my own than my vote is my own ; and the threat of death to
me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union,
to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable
that all parts of this great Confederacy shall he at peace, and in har-
mony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it
so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion
and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as
listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if,
in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. (35) Judging by
all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their contro-
versy with us, let us determine, if wre can, what will satisfy them.
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally sur-
* ui property in men. The reason of duties did' not hold, as slaves are not, like merchan-
dise, consumed.
**********
It was finally agreed, nem., con. to make the clause read —
" But a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollar*
for each PERSON." — Madison Papers, Aug. 25, 1787.
Note 35. — Compare this noble passage and that at page 18, with the muddle oi
Mr. Orr, (note 30,) and the slang of Mr. Douglas, (note 37.)
80
rendered to them? We know they will not In all their present con i-
,the Territori - I i ins
and insurr are the rage now. Will it Batisfy them, it', in I
I'm to do with invasions and insurrections? We
kn> '.'.'■ soknow, ise we know we never had ai
thi: ith invasions ami insurrections; and yet this total ab-
apt us from the charge and the denunciation.
ion recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this:
We :i. only let them alone, but we >mehow, con-
vince them that we do let them alone. Thi know by experi-
task. We have been so trying to convince them
from tl . beginning of our organization, but with n
In all our platforms and speeches wc have constantly ted our
purpose to let them alone ; but this has had n I >convh
a. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they
have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what
will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery
wrong, and join them in calling it right And this must be done
thoroughlv — done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be
tolerated — we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator
Douglas's new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppn
all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in polil
in presses, in pulpits, or in private. "Wc must arrest and return
their fugiti i with greedy pleasure. "We must pull down our
•tutions. The whole atmosphere must be disin-
fect n all taint of opposition toslav ' fore they will cease
that all their troubles proceed from
1 am quite aware they do uot state their sly in this
Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do
md say what you please about slave: But Ave
do let them alone — ha-. :r disturbed them — so that, after all,
it is what /, which di them' They will continue to
acc - of doing, until •.. ie savin.
i aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the
overthrow of our I » Constitutions. (36) Yet those Constitu-
leolare I rong of ry, with mor< on emphasis,
Xotk 8<>. — Th^t demand has since been made. I O'COSOR, counsel for the
Ptate of Virginia in the Lemon Com, pig* 41: "We claim that under thcae various
" provisions of the ] lei il Constitution, a citizen of Virginia has an immunity against
"the operation of anj law which the State of Kew-York can enact, whilst he is a stran-
31
than do all other sayings against it; and when all those otter
sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitu-
tions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand.
It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole
of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason
they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consum-
mation, llolding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and
socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national
recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing. (37)
Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our
conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words,
acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and
should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot
justly object to its nationality — its universality ; if it is wrong, they
" gcr and wayfarer, or -whilst passing through our territory ; and that he has absolute
" protection for all his domestic rights, and for all his right9 of property, which under
" the laws of the United States, and the laws of his own State, he was entitled to,
" whilst in his own State. We claim this, and neither more kor less."
Throughout the whole of that case, in which the right to pass through New-York
with slaves at the pleasure of the slave owners i3 maintained, it is nowhere contended
that the statute is contrary to the Constitution of New-York ; but that the statute and
the Constitution of the State are both contrary to the Constitution of the United States.
The State of Virginia, not content with the decision of our own courts upon the
right claimed by them, is now engaged in carrying this, the Lemon case, to the Supreme
Court of the United States, hoping by a decision there, in accordance with the inti-
mations in the Drcd Scott case, to overthrow the Constitution of New-York.
Senator Toombs, of Georgia, has claimed in the Senate, that laws of Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Wisconsin, for the exclusion of slavery, conceded to be warranted by the State Consti-
tutions, are contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and has asked for the
enactment of laws by the General Government which shall override the laws of those
States and the Constitutions which authorize them.
Note 37. — "Policy, humanity, and Christianity, alike forbid the extension of the evils of
free society to new people and coming generations." — Richmond Enquirer, Jan. 22, 1856.
" I am satisfied that the mind of the South has undergone a change to this great ex-
" tent, that it is now the almost universal belief in the South, not only that the con-
" dition of African slavery in their midst, is the best condition to which the African
"race has ever been subjected, but that it has the effect of ennobling both races, the
"ichite and the black.'" — Senator Mason, of Virginia.
" I declare again, as I did in reply to the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Doolittle,)
that, in my opinion, slavery is a great moral, social and political blessing — a blessing
to the slave, and a blessing to the master." — Mr. Broicn, in the Senate, March G, 1S60.
" I am a Southern States' Rights man; I am an African slave-trader. I am one
of those Southern men who believe that slavery is right — morally, religiously, socially,
and politically." (Applause.) ******
" I represent the African Slave-trade interests of that section. (Applause.) lam proud of
the position I occupy in that respect. I believe the African Slave-trader is a true mission-
ary and a true Christian." (Applause.) — Mr. Gaulden, a delegate from First Congressional
District of Georgia, hi the Charleston Convention, noic a supporter of Mr. Douglas.
" Ladies and gentlemen, I would gladly speak again, but you see from the tones of
my voice, that I am unable to. This has been a happy, a glorious day. I shall never
forget it. There is a charm about this beautful day, about this sea air, and especially
about that peculiar institution of yours — a clam bake. I think you have the advantage,
in that respect, of Southerners. For my own part, I have much more fondness for your
clams than I have for their niggers. But every man to his taste." — Hon. Stephen A.
Douglas's Address at Rocky Point, 11. I., Aug. 2, 1S60.
apt justly insist upon dts iaion — :i oaent Allii .
,:it, if '.• Av.-ry I
.. . . rant, il'th.y 1;. itWTOng. (38) Thi-ir
thinking it r and our thinking it wrong, is the .precise fact
Thinking it right, as
are opt to Maui'' :' full recognition, as
but, think: I f aswedo, can we yield tothem?
3 with their vie w,,an4 again* '■'■<■' ' \ ■
iur mora!, social, and political responsibilities, can we do th
Wr . cry i<, we can j rd to let it alone
i that much is. due to the ssity prising from
its :■•'• in the nation ; but can we, while <>ur votes will
ivent it, allow it to spread into the Natrona] Territories, and to
min us here in these Five States? [four senseof duty forbids
tiii-. then lei us Btand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let
1 by none' srahjstical contrivances wherewith
we are so industriously plied and belabored — contrivances such as
groj'inLr for Borne middle ground between we right and the wrong,
. In as the search for a man who should be neither a living man
nor a dead man — such as a policy of "don't can1" on a question
ttt which all true men do eaiv— B»cb B£ I'nion ap] ch*
ing true [Jnion men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine
rule and calling, not the sinner-, but the righteous to repentant, —
•h as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what
shington said, and undo what Washington dicL
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations
• us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruc: :he
•nt nor of dungi -.'Ives. LET I S UA\ E
PA1TH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AN1> IN THAT
. in i. i.i:tus, totiik km». i»aki-;todo oukduty
• \VK i ! i'ANDIT.
Note ?8. — It i- interesting to observe how two profoundly logical minds, though
:lug extreme, «ppo -. havgdeduci dithisc imman conclusion. Bays lit-.
eminent leader of the New-York Bar, and the co mi- 1 It the State of Virginia in
Lemon cm*, in his Bpeech at C »oper In titute, December 19th, 1859: —
'■That J8th0point to which thfc umenJ must come— Is negro slavery unjust ?
If I c i -» unjust, it • that firs< rule ox human conduct—' Bender to every man his
due' If it ii It riolates the law of God which says, ' [iore thy neighboras
Detratc no injustice. Gentleman, if it c
oaintained that negro slavery " , perhaps 1 might be prepared — perha]
ired — io pi with I ushed man to whom allusion is
. higher law which i ompels as to trample bew
• jtabhshed bj with all the blessingfl it secures to their
r. . 1 in.-Ut — and that is th< ai jumentwl t,andon which we
onclusion thai .-lull goTcrp our actions is the future selection ofrepre-
t~r. rrewofth ' I Insist that negro dari ■■!-,-•
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11